Detailed Action
The office action is in response to the communications filed on 03/24/2026.
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
Claims 12 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are pending in this application.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Karampatsis et al. (Publication No. US 2020/0037218), the prior art discloses the source eNB 215 selects a first target eNB, considering not only the relay UE 210 but also the identified remote UEs; see ¶ 93.
Response to Arguments
Applicant remarks, filed on 03/24/2026, argues that the cited portion of the prior art, individually or in combination, fails to discloses the features in claim 1. In particular, Applicant indicates that the cited references do not disclose or suggest at least the features "wherein information about an identifier (ID) of the selected relay UE is transmitted to the first BS, and the ID which is allocated by the second BS associated with the selected relay UE is related to an RRC reconfiguration procedure between the second BS and the relay UE” as recited in the amended claims. Examiner notes that no patentable weight was given to this feature of the claim based on the BRI of the claim; see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 13, it’s unclear what is meant by the limitations “wherein information about an identifier (ID) of the selected relay UE is transmitted to the first BS, and the ID which is allocated by the second BS associated with the selected relay UE is related to an RRC reconfiguration procedure between the second BS and the relay UE” based on the context of the claim. Its unclear whether transmitting the information about an ID is a step of the claimed method, or whether its just providing context to the claimed “information”. The claimed information isn’t linked to any other element of the claimed method, so the impact of the claimed information has on the method is unclear. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of further prosecution, the BRI of claim 1 is limited to the preforming…, transmitting…, establishing... and transmitting… steps. The transmission of the information about the ID appears to be outside of the scope of the claimed invention.
In addition, “the second BS” lack antecedent basis. Proper correction is required.
Regarding Claims 2-9 and 11, the claims are rejected as they inherited the deficiencies of the parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to the parent claim above.
Regarding Claim 7, it’s unclear what is meant by the limitations “wherein the ID information is information about a local ID allocated to the relay UE by the second BS and the local ID is separately from a layer 2 ID” based on the context of the claim. In specific, it is unclear whether the layer 2 ID belongs to the remote UE or the relay UE. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the limitations have been interpreted that the information identify the .
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, it’s unclear what is meant by the limitation “wherein information about an identifier (ID) of the selected relay UE is transmitted by the remote UE, and the ID which is allocated by the second BS associated with the selected relay UE is related to a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration procedure between the second BS and the relay UE” based on the context of the claim. Its unclear whether transmitting the information about an ID is a step of the claimed method, or whether its just providing context to the claimed “information”. The claimed information isn’t linked to any other element of the claimed method, so the impact of the claimed information has on the method is unclear. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of further prosecution, the BRI of claim 14 is limited to the receiving…, determining…, and transmitting… steps. The transmission of the information about the ID appears to be outside of the scope of the claimed invention.
In addition, “the second BS” lack antecedent basis. Proper correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 8-11, and 13-15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (Publication No. US 2021/0168682, hereinafter referred as Xu) in view of Paladugu et al. (Publication No. US 2023/0247513, hereinafter referred as Paladugu).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 13, Xu discloses performing a measurement on a plurality of candidate relay UEs (A remote UE 110 collect measurement data from a first relay UE 112 and a second relay UE 422 [candidate relay], see figure 7 numeral 705. The use of a single remote UE (e.g., UE 110) and two relay UEs (e.g., UE 112 and UE 422) is only provided for illustrative purposes, but there may be multiple remote UEs and multiple relay UEs; see ¶ 51.);
transmitting a measurement report to a first base station (BS) (The remote UE 110 transmits a measurement report to a gNB 120A via the first relay UE 112; see figure 7 numeral 710/715.);
establishing a radio resource control (RRC) connection with one relay UE selected from the plurality of candidate relay UEs (The remote UE establish a relay link with the second relay UE, wherein the relay link is establish a RRC connection; see figure 7 numeral 745-755.),
transmitting a signal to the relay UE(The remote UE transmits a RRC message to the second relay UE; see figure 7 numeral 750.).
Xu fails to disclose that the information about an identifier (ID) of the selected relay UE is transmitted to the first BS, and the ID which is allocated by the second BS associated with the selected relay UE is related to an RRC reconfiguration procedure between the second BS and the relay UE. However, in analogous art, Paladugu discloses that after the remote UE and the relay UE have discovered each other, the remote UE may be configured to send a message informing the base station about the potential relay UE, wherein message comprises a measured channel quality and a relay UE identifier; see ¶ 45. NOTE: No patentable weight was given to this limitation based on the BRI of the claim; see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu link management system by incorporating the messages of Paladugu in order to enhance the mobility of the UE in the link management system.
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses that the RRC reconfiguration procedure is a procedure for configuring the relay UE to operate as a relay of the remote UE (The gNB 120A transmits a message to the UE 422 including configuration information for the UE 110, wherein this message may enable the UE 422 to serve as a relay for the UE 110; see figure 7 numeral 725 & ¶ 88.)
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses that the first BS determines path switching to the relay UE of the remote UE (The gNB 120A [first BS] determines that the serving link for the UE 110 is to be switched from the relay link with the UE 112 to a relay link with the UE 422, wherein this determination may be performed on the basis of the measurement report; see figure 7 numeral 720 & ¶ 87.).
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses that the relay UE is selected by one of the remote UE or the first BS (The gNB 120A [first BS] determines that the serving link for the UE 110 is to be switched from the relay link with the UE 112 to a relay link with the UE 422, wherein this determination may be performed on the basis of the measurement report; see figure 7 numeral 720 & ¶ 87.).
Regarding claim 11, Xu discloses that the remote UE communicates with at least one of another UE, a UE related to an autonomous driving vehicle, a base station (BS), or a network. (The UE 110 [remote UE] and the UE 422 [relay UE] participate in a signaling exchange to establish a serving relay link.; see figure 7 numeral 745 & ¶ 90.).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Xu discloses receiving, from a remote user equipment (UE), a measurement report for a plurality of candidate relay UEs (The remote UE 110 transmits a measurement report to a gNB 120A via the first relay UE 112; see figure 7 numeral 710/715.);
determining switching to one relay UE selected from among the plurality of candidate relay UEs (In response to receiving the measurement report, the gNB determine to switch the serving link from the relay link with the UE 112 to a relay link with the UE 422; see figure 7 numeral 720 & ¶ 87.),
transmitting a configuration message for RRC connection between the remote UE and the selected relay UE(Since the UE 110 is now configured with a serving relay link to the UE 422, the RRC reconfiguration complete message is transmitted to the gNB 120A over the relay link to the UE 422; see figure 7 numerals 750-755 & ¶ 90.)
Xu fails to disclose that the information about an identifier (ID) of the selected relay UE is transmitted by the remote UE, and the ID which is allocated by the second BS associated with the selected relay UE is related to a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration procedure between the second BS and the relay UE. However, in analogous art, Paladugu discloses that after the remote UE and the relay UE have discovered each other, the remote UE may be configured to send a message informing the base station about the potential relay UE, wherein message comprises a measured channel quality and a relay UE identifier; see ¶ 45. NOTE: No patentable weight was given to this limitation based on the BRI of the claim; see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu link management system by incorporating the messages of Paladugu in order to enhance the mobility of the UE in the link management system.
Claim 2 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Paladugu, and further in view of Wang et al. (Publication No. US 2023/0156564, hereinafter referred as Wang).
Regarding claim 2, Xu fails to disclose that the ID information is delivered to the second BS from the first BS. However, in analogous art, Horn discloses that the source base station identifies a serving cell identifier of the relay UE in the measurement report, and sends a switching request message to a target base station, where the message carries the C-RNTI of the relay UE; see ¶ 140. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu link management system by messages of Wang in order to enable the switching of the remote UE from the source BS to the Target BS.
Claim 4 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Paladugu, and further in view of Cheng et al. (Publication No. US 2023/0262569, hereinafter referred as Cheng).
Regarding claim 4, Xu fails to disclose that the information is included in the measurement report. However, in analogous art, Cheng discloses that the remote UE may send a measurement report with cell ID(s) and relay UE ID(s); see ¶ 93. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu measurement report message by incorporating the ID information of Cheng in order to enable the network assisting the remote UE to switch between different connection (direct/indirect).
Claim 5 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Paladugu, and further in view of Cheng et al. (Publication No. US 2024/0007922, hereinafter referred as Cheng).
Regarding claim 5, Xu fails to disclose that the ID is a layer2 ID allocated by the second BS. However, in analogous art, Cheng discloses that the target base station [second BS] may store the relay UE-to-remote UE L2 ID; see 117. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu handover procedure by incorporating mechanism of storing the UE L2 ID in the target base station of Cheng in order to enable the target base station to transmit messages intended for the remote UE based on the target L2 UE-to-network relay.
Claim 6 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Paladugu, Agiwal et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0359766, hereinafter referred as Agiwal), and further in view of Freda et al. (Publication No. US 2024/0259906, hereinafter referred as Freda).
Regarding claim 6, Xu fails to disclose that the layer2 ID is included in a discovery message transmitted by the relay UE. However, in analogous art, Agiwal discloses that the relay discovery announcement message comprises of a Relay UE identifier (ID), wherein the relay UE ID is a layer 2 identifier of UE-NW relay; see ¶ 47. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu discovery message by incorporating the relay UE L2 ID of Agiwal in order to enable the appropriate selection of the relay UE by the network or remote UE.
Xu fails to disclose that the layer2 ID is included in a PC5 RRC message that are transmitted by the relay UE. However, in analogous art, Freda discloses that the relay WTRU may be configured (e.g., by upper layers) with an L2 source/destination ID to use for transmission of the LPI message and may send this to each remote WTRU (e.g. source) during PC5-RRC configuration procedure for link establishment; see ¶ 99. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu relay message by incorporating the relay UE L2 ID of Freda in order to establish the relay link with the relay UE configured with the L2 ID .
Claim 7 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Paladugu, and further in view of Lee et al. (Publication No. US 2020/0389900, hereinafter referred as Lee).
Regarding claim 7, Xu fails to disclose that the ID information is information about a local ID allocated to the relay UE by the second BS and the local ID is separately from a layer 2 ID. However, in analogous art, Lee discloses that the local ID of the relay UE may be allocated by the base station; see ¶ 127. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu relay configuration by incorporating the local ID of Lee in order to uniquely identifying the relay UE among all connected UEs including the relay UE and all remote UEs connected thereto.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hector Reyes (Hector.Reyes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates (Kevin.Bates@uspto.gov) can be reached on (571) 270-0239. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights